(Überschrift) for vv 14–23 (Wilckens, 2:85, 100); see also on 5:20–21 Form and Structure. More important for exegesis, the parallel between vv 14–17 and 18–23 has been given insufficient attention: the analysis in each case is largely the same, with the explanation of the “I” ’s failure attributed to sin in both cases (vv 1 4–17, 18–20), but with the positive affirmation of the law in v 16 answered by the fuller statement of vv 21–23. The effect is to explain the law’s role in the same terms as the